Comparison of Reading Times of RFID-Tagged and Barcode-Engraved Surgical Instruments.

Introduction: To improve patient safety and reduce burden on healthcare professionals and institutions, the individual management of surgical instruments is essential. There are two methods for individual item management: radio-frequency identification (RFID) and barcoding. However, there has been no examination of efficiency regarding reading times. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the reading times of RFID-tagged and barcode-engraved surgical instruments and evaluate the influence of operator proficiency.

Methods: The participants included 8 individuals and 41 surgical instruments from a varicose vein set. RFID tags and barcodes were attached to the surgical instruments. Five trials were conducted for each, and the reading times were measured.

Results: The reading times for RFID-tagged surgical instruments in the skilled and unskilled groups were 64.0 ± 9.0s and 79.4 ± 17.0 s, respectively, whereas those for barcode-engraved surgical instruments were 190.4 ± 28.1 s and 212.3 ± 40.3 s, respectively. Barcodes took 3.0 and 2.7 times longer to read than RFID-tagged instruments for the skilled and unskilled groups, respectively. Additionally, skilled operators using barcodes required 2.4 times more time than unskilled operators using RFID. Even nonmedical individuals were able to achieve quick and accurate readings with RFID. The estimated labor hours per person were $24,146-$42,322 for RFID and $71,078-$110,898 for barcode scanning for a year (working 8 h/d for 250 d).

Conclusions: RFID-tagged surgical instruments impose a lighter workload and financial burden than barcode-engraved surgical instruments. RFID technology may also improve patient safety due to less dependency on operator proficiency.